Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 31, 2007 - 01:20am PT
|
just got it.. didn't read it carefully yet... some nice pictures, but not of the kind of climbing I do, really...
here's this year's picture breakdown:
18 bouldering
10 sport
9 trad
4 ice climbing
3 landscape
2 solo
2 aid
1 mountaineering
1 slackline
dude!, guess I should by a pad and one of those knit caps...
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:27am PT
|
they totally screwed up on who has the most climbing magazine cover shots.
any one care to take a guess? (it's not what's-his-name at thirteen covers, btw)
plus the real champ has four covers to the annual "gear guide" issue.
i can't believe the freakin' numbnuts who work on editorial for the mag can't even get this one right.
the MAN has 16 covers, and reinvented rock climbing photography in 1985.
that should be a hint.
|
|
climbrunride
Trad climber
Durango, CO
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:30am PT
|
Without actually pulling out the boxes of old climbing mags, I'll just guess. Based on the above clue, probably Greg Epperson.
|
|
elcap-pics
climber
Crestline CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:01am PT
|
Yo... the new paper they are using (recycled) makes the photos look dull and I thought the overall quality was not up to those in past years. Several were poorly focused shots and some were just not interesting from a photographic standpoint. Guess that they need to look at Alpinist. Good to see Greg E. get some shots in as he does such outstanding work.... my $0.02 worth.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:14am PT
|
bingo. epi.
16 covers, plus four covers of the annual "gear" issues.
my tally:
1-103
2-104
3-114
4-118
5-121
6-123
7-132
8-136
9-141
10-144
11-153
12-162
13-176
14-177
15-180
16-212
yeah...i thought the photo repro quality in teh latest ish was an insult to the photogs...seen better quality repro in the fvcking local paper, on newsprint...check out epi's "classic curl" shot in the latest mag, then compare it to the original, uncropped version in the BD catalog...two different pics...one great, the other sucks...if yer gonna print photos that have been created as works of art, better to suck it up and print on decent paper than to take great pics, crop 'em, manipulate 'em, outsize 'em, downsize 'em, generally fvck 'em up, and make 'em look like crap...
the BD catalog and the patagonia catalog always seen to maintain respect for the artistic intent of the photographer....what's with climbing these days??
i mean. fvck.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:23am PT
|
The paper definitely sucks and has a lot to do with it. It also has to do with the fact that the final product is really up to the eye of the guy doing the CMYK stuff, which is really a different beast, altogether, than the color managed system photographers are (should be) using.
My shot in Alpinist this month looks entirely different than it does in printed (photo) or monitor display form. Just the nature of the beast, really, in a lot of ways. You're going to lose some when you go from print (photo) or screen image to print (CMYK)no matter what.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 12:01pm PT
|
I would concure with the many comments made so far. Some professional photographers, who have the stature, maintain some quality control when their images are published and get to review a proof pre-press copy. But, you better be Galen Rowell, or Ansell Adams if you are going to ask for that kind of treatment.
I did find the essays comparing digital to film somewhat interesting. All I got to say is, what would Galen Rowell say and do?
I can't help but think he would still be film all the way. He wrote many essays regarding his view, and when a client/customer wanted to see the real deal (the slide) he could always provide that proof. Something about doing all the magic and manipulation in camera and on the scene, using advanced skills, and letting the photons of light reflected by or being emitted from the original scene to refract through the lense, and hit the plane of film at the speed of light reacting with the chemicals and film directly to capture a moment in time.
Digital does this to a point, but the photons of light just hit a sensor, and record the data with ones and zeros. You don't get something that was originally there on scene, experiencing the same conditions that you did. Think about it. With film you are carrying another companion that was really there at that moment and experienced the conditions you did. That slide film really went to the summit of Everest, or where ever you climbed, and actually went with you. Can you really say that with digital? I don't think you can.
After the image is captured on high resolution professional film like Velvia, then go nutes with the digital darkroom. You always have the original work of art that was really there to begin with. I agree with Galen, the digital work should only project what the film/eye saw, nothing more. If you are really into digital enhancements great, then identify it as such, and go nuts. That's another art medium and has value on it's own merits and its beautiful and wonderful to look at.
There is a great arguement with the tradition of light and film. I like it best, and I can still make use of the digital technologies. Galen said this, and I think Galen would still agree, and still hold to his guns even now, even though in the last 4+ years since he has passed away we have seen a lot of change.
Now, hopefully Fuji and Kodak and other film companies will always continue high quality films, and high quality film cameras will still be produced. I've seen too many great labs in San Diego, that I once used, have to close their doors within the last 5 years. Very sad.
I think both traditional and digital have their place, I just prefer the traditional art of film. Although, digital is great for snap shots for sure, and has its proper use. I use my wifes digital just for that reason. It's time to get my Nikon/film system out again and start shooting like I used too. I'm feeling very nostalgic right about now . . .
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:11pm PT
|
Hey bvb,
Has Epi gone digital all the way, or is he still shooting some film? Just curious. I knew at one point he and I were using the same lab "Chromacolor" in San Diego in Little Italy, but sadly the lab has closed it's doors. Very sad. They did great work.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 01:36pm PT
|
Jerry Dodrill,
I would like to know your thoughts on the film vs. digital debate if you wouldn't mind commenting.
I know you were also heavily influenced by Galen. One, other question: Did you ever work for Galen, when he still only had just the one office in Albany? My wife and I stopped in there many years ago on our way through during a summer vacation once upon a time.
Hopefully you and bvb will sometime see these questions. Just curious what your thoughts are on the matter. No rush. Thanks.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:43pm PT
|
Hi Klimmer,
Thanks for you insights on this. I worked for Galen from '96-'00. He moved out of the Albany office in '95 I believe. I looked in the window once, but never was there when he occupied it.
As to color accuracy, I clearly remember his scathing letters to editors for f*#king up his photos with poor reproductions. He always stood for the highest standards of reproduction. When I first started working there he was working on the Bay Area Wild book, which required several rounds of proofing and tweaking images before the book was printed, and he still bitched about poor reproductions. The magazines didn't give him any more preferential treatment than anyone else, they just received more of his anger.
On digital fine art printing and photoshop, It was interesting watching the transition in the late '90s from Type C prints using internegs to drum scans and lightjet prints. He had a distinct line in the sand that he would not cross regarding manipulation of content within images. He would not take out or move any part of the image that was part of the scene. Photographic artifacts like lens flares could be removed. We didn't see eye to eye on the issue of color saturation. I always thought he was pushing beyond believability, and as the Gallery Manager had to constantly explain to customers that the prints represented a balance between what Galen captured on film and his recollections of the scene as he remembered it. -Pretty vague. So it didn't really matter if he was using digital or film in the finished print. I stopped arguing with him about saturation because dark room work wasn't my job, and it wasn't helping my situation there. I do take pride in the mutual respect we had for one another's opinions and perspectives, even when they were at odds. He was always careful to ask what I thought and would listen with great consideration. It was a period of time in digital history where there were no real manuals or how-to guides for photographers. So it was fascinating.
Your arguement about the film being present as an artifact of the experience is great. I haven't heard it put that way, but it really nails the intangible sense of nostalgia that I have for film which digital just doesn't have. Each have their place certainly and quality can be argued. I would guess that if Galen was still alive he would be using both film and digital, for different purposes. In his later years he was doing so much landscape work, and for that, film is great. For journalism, editorial work, and for teaching workshops, digital is a logical medium. Anyhow, that's my two cents.
JD
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Jarhead City, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 02:55pm PT
|
Klimmer:
I asked Epi that same question back in the fall. He said he's all digital now.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 04:59pm PT
|
Jerry,
Thanks for your detailed response. I learned a lot.
Yea, about saturation. I know what your talking about, but having grown up looking at a lot of Galen's work, and constantly comparing mine with his, I think I like saturation also. I can see both sides to the arguement though. I think Verne Clevenger feels much the way you do, having been a protoge of Galen's. When I have talked to Verne and looked closely at his large format images, it is sometimes very hard to see when he has used a nuetral density filter to holdback portions of the scene. He uses them very subltely. And he is also on the more "normal" side of color saturation. I guess sometimes what we remember, is sometimes more vivid than what we really witnessed at times. I know color can be very intense in dreams. The saturation question is another hard choice to make when it comes time to expose or to produce an enlargement for display. I think the "Wow" effect with color saturation is hard to avoid, if that is the response you want from those who view the work. You make good arguements.
I know digital is a wonderful tool, especially for learning or using as a tool to see what results you might get on film before actually burning the film. And I agree, it seems both are very useable and have their applications, and now digital resolution is getting very close to film (although in large format aerial photography/remote sensing cameras, digital is miles away). I just hope the camera and film manufactures don't let this wonderful technology that has been perfected for over a hundred years with film go the way of the Doe-Doe bird.
Maybe we could have the best of both worlds in one camera? Maybe Nikon could develope a system that combines the two? One moment you are using digital to set-up the scene, and set all controls, then take a quick digital to see what you got. Then turn the dial and shoot the same settings on film. Now you have both. This would be awesome for landscape photography, as well as other applications.
I would just hate to see film leave altogether. Who knows, maybe the film resolution can continue to improve as well? They shouldn't stop trying just because of digital. Seems all their efforts are into digital at this time though.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 05:01pm PT
|
El Cap,
Thanks. Yea, it seems everyone is going that way :-(
I can see why, but I still think it would be great to marry the two as I spoke above.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007 - 05:37pm PT
|
K-
Film isn't quite completely dead. I understand Fuji is releasing a new version of Velvia 50 soon that will replace the original one that has been discontinued. We'll have to wait and see if it's any good.
If you want a film/digi camera just get a digi back for a medium format so you can change back and forth. Better have some serious $$$ though.
JD
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
Scan and post, beyotch!!!
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
Greg Epperson DID re-invent the wheel and he DID make a better mousetrap. Many have copied his "style", but none are the real thing. Bow down before the Eppulator.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 1, 2007 - 03:26pm PT
|
What I worry most about is that the trend to digital images will expand the class of ephemera to include most photography. Without the film recording, the image exists in an ever rapidly changing digital universe. The storage of these images depends on technologies which simply disappear over time, and once that happens, the images are lost.
I love the old images preserved by people who just keep the negatives... or maybe some printed images that can be scanned.
The reasons that I enjoy these visuals from back in the day is not clear to me. Good literature is also enjoyable. I guess the story is enhanced by the melding of the two. Going digital is inevitable... but I like the time in film.
|
|
BadInfluence
Mountain climber
Dak side
|
|
Hassleblad has Digi back 39 mp that supposely surpassed the quality of film.
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
You ARE a bad influence. How many dollars would one have to throw to the dark side for a setup like that? Assuming I don't have a Hasselblad already, which I don't.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!